It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Reptilian DNA

page: 6
2
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2004 @ 04:58 PM
link   
The native americans were Asiatic(black/Moor) which eventually interbred with the Caucasian people to produce what is seen as the common Indian or reddish-brown complexion. They're was a civilization even before the Olmecs, but I'm sorry the name eludes me right now. Alot of people have a hard time believing that asiatic peoples were here and didn't all come from Africa, but the archaelogical evidence has been produced in the form of 20-30 ton stone statutes here in the Americas. The ancients at one time refered to this land as Amexem. Plato describes the great cataclysm which separated what is now known today as Africa and America at about 9000BC. Quezacotl as Thoth? First time I remember hearing that. Thoth being the Greek word which derived from Tehuti-Thoth which became what we know today as thought. It can be confusing especially using techniques such as metagraphy, apocope, syncope, paragoge, etc. DOnt ask me which one does what as I forget! There are a few more.




posted on Jun, 19 2004 @ 05:25 PM
link   
According to recent genetic studies, the Native Americans were indeed of Asiatic and Black (african) descent and not of semetic/jewish/israeli descent. An article on the subject explains:


DNA studies on the origin of Native Americans
Scientific studies examining the origin of Native Americans use several different techniques. The fact that all the techniques lead to the same conclusions is extremely strong evidence regarding the validity of the studies. These studies can be classified into five major groups:

Y-chromosome
mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA)
Polymorphic Alu insertions
Intestinal microbial flora
Domesticated animals
Y-chromosome

The Y-chromosome is the sex-determining chromosome found only in males. This chromosome is passed down from father to son, and so, records the history of descent along the male bloodline. Since it is passed down exclusively by males, there is no recombination on the chromosome, making the genetics considerably simpler than in the chromosomes that recombine.

The studies show that Native Americans share genetic Y-chromosome polymorphisms with Siberian Asians. One study examined, a C-->T transition at nucleotide position 181 of the DYS199 locus, which was found in all five Native American populations studied.5 The same polymorphism was found in two of nine native Siberian populations, the Siberian Eskimo and the Asian Chukchi. As a control, researchers examined the DYS287 Y Alu polymorphic element insertion and an A-->G transition at DYS271, both commonly found in Africans, but found neither African allele associated with the DYS199 T allele in any of the Native American or native Siberian populations.

A second study examined the major groups of the Native American founding populations.6 Haplotype M3, accounted for 66% of male Y-chromosomes and was found associated with native populations from the Chukotka peninsula in Siberia, adjacent to Alaska. The second major group of Native American Y-chromosomes, haplotype M45, accounted for about one-quarter of male lineages. This haplotype was found in the Lower Amur River and Sea of Okhotsk regions of eastern Siberia. The remaining 5% of Native American Y-chromosomes were of haplotype RPS4Y-T, which was found in the Lower Amur River/Sea of Okhotsk region of Siberia. These data suggested that Native American male lineages were derived from two major Siberian migrations.

Another study examined more than 2,500 Y-chromosomes of wide geographic origin for the presence of the DYS199T allele.7 The allele was found only in Amerindian and east Asian populations. A large worldwide study of over 300 men examined 32 Y-chromosome haplotypes and traced the ancestors of Native Americans back to Central Siberia, primarily the Kets and Altaians from the Yenissey River Basin and Altai Mountains.8 Another worldwide study examined over 2,000 males from 60 global populations and concluded that the founder population of Native Americans had migrated “from the general region of Lake Baikal to the Americas.”9

Other studies have examined the pattern of migration in the Americas revealed through Y chromosomal polymorphisms found in different Native American populations. These studies have found a North to South gradient of increasing genetic drift in the Americas.10

Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA)

Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is passed down from mother to daughter, and so defines the lineage along the female bloodline. Therefore, it provides an independent means to confirm descent of population groups.

One study analyzed mtDNA in 42 Mongolians from Ulan Bator. All four Amerindian founding lineage haplotypes were detected in 54% of these 42 individuals, demonstrating an Asian origin.11 A second study examined mtDNA hypervariable segment I (HVS-1) from the Tuvinians and Buryats, two aboriginal populations of South Siberia. This study found that these populations expressed the four Native American-specific haplogroups (A-D) at frequencies of 72.2% and 55%.12

Another study, using 720 Amerindian mtDNA sequences, showed that Native Americans’ ancestral-population differentiation occurred approximately 22,000 years ago,13

www.godandscience.org...



Shrug. The interesting thing about this article is, it isn't really disproving the Book of Mormon, even though it claims to be. What it doesn't take into account is, when the Book of Mormon references the israelites, it doesn't mean semetic people, it means caucasian people because Mormon theology originally taught that Adam was white, the hebrews were white, etc. Joesph Smith and/or Brigham Young (Smith's successor) had much theology in common with the modern day Christian Identity movement and white supremacy. So the evidence that there's no semetic markers in Native American genetics doesn't disprove the Book of Mormon.

I don't agree with the Book of Mormon, which you can probably tell, but I'm not sure what these scientists are trying to prove as they are deliberately attacking the BoM from the wrong perspective!

Strange.

[edit on 19-6-2004 by Undomiel]



posted on Jun, 19 2004 @ 10:12 PM
link   
Hi, Just wanted to jump in here again...not because I really have anything to offer, but I'm trying to learn. And please don't think I'm being critical of anyone's thinking, because, well...I don't do that. But, didn't someone not long ago put forth the theory, or maybe it was a proof, that all or most of mankind had been traced back to one mother, or something like that. I'm not good at finding the references, but maybe someone here has heard that also. (and I think it had something to do with tracing mitochondrial dna) I'll try to find it... but don't count on me too much lol.

But anyway, I have a couple questions for anyone here who would like to answer: Where were the caucasians or European ancestry supposed to have come from? and...

Who, where or what race do you think are the lost tribes of Israel?

Also, I read that the fallen angels did mix with the daughters of men (human women) and created what were probably known as the giants. Noah was chosen to save the race during the flood, and the flood was brought by God to destroy the evil races proliferating upon the earth.

However, since Noah brought his sons (and their wives) onto the boat, the evil races were not completely erradicated, although Satan's plan was definitely deterred.

Now, this: If some of us do have reptilian dna...how do we know which ones of us have it, and is it possible that all of humankind during this age may be both reptialian and human? Is that creepy or what?



posted on Jun, 20 2004 @ 12:22 AM
link   
First, I want to apologize for any racism I have exhibited thus far. It’s something I’ve been struggling with for a while. Racism wasn’t an issue I struggled with personally until a couple of years ago, after I started reading and studying certain things. But I understand that showing favor or disfavor to anyone based merely on their outward appearance is not right. Faith in Yahshua and love for Yahweh should unite us, not separate us. I know that racist groups (whether they be white, black, Jewish, Asian, etc.) mostly preach pride in their own kind and hatred toward all others, and neither pride nor hatred are of God. I guess I just get a little confused some times because the popular Satanic culture seems to be preaching the brotherhood of all races and is constantly supporting love for diversity. But I suppose I should remember that Satan transforms himself into an angel of light, so there is often truth intermingled with his lies.

What really matters is who we are on the inside, not what we look like on the outside. I realize now that the color of Adam‘s skin is of little to no importance. Perhaps that is why the Bible has very little to say about the different races of man. I don't really know what color Adam and Eve were for certain, whether they were black, white, yellow, or red. The appearance of Yahshua’s eternal form is also a mystery. The exact results (beyond giantism and a couple of other notable defects or alterations) of the fallen angels'/aliens' interbreeding with humans is equally unclear. I accept the possibility that most, if not all, races of man were created on the sixth day. Whatever race Adam and Eve belonged to when they were created on the ‘eighth day’, we will find out when Yahshua returns. And at that point, I’m quite certain that no one will be very concerned about the color of His skin. Revelation may have some clue in that respect for those who are interested.

1:15 And his feet like unto fine brass [chalkolibanon - burnished bronze, fine bronze], as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.

Whether or not that “fine bronze” is a literal reference to Yahshua’s skin color, or whether it is meant to be symbolic of something else, I cannot say. Anyway, I recommend the following link to anyone who wants to read more evidence for two creation events in the Bible.

www.biblestudysite.com...

I don’t agree with everyone he says, but he does make some good arguments and presents a lot of interesting ideas. There is also a question and answer section near the end that is helpful.

I don’t think Reptilian and Annunaki DNA is restricted to any one race or ethnic group. I do believe that many of the people claiming to be “God’s Chosen People” are the exact opposite. Just like Satan is constantly trying to convince people that he is God, so the children of the devil are trying to convince the world that they are the children of god. It is my understanding that the Kenites (Cainites/Qayini) are masquerading as modern ‘Jews’. Not that all Jews are Kenites, but many of them are.

KJV Revelation 2:9
9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.

KJV Revelation 3:9
9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

I don’t believe Adam was a Watcher. Futhermore, I don’t agree with Sitchin’s theories. I’ll admit that I was allowing for the possibility that the Annunaki could have produced certain races by genetic experiments on Homo Erectus or Neanderthals, but I have since seen the error of such thinking.

I don’t think that Native Americans are Caucasian-Asiatic. (Intermarriage between Caucasians and Asians alone produces Turkish sort of people I believe.) Rather, I was theorizing that the Native Americans are a blending of all three (or more) different races of man. Maybe they are mostly African-Asiatic. I don’t know for certain. But there are differences between the Native Americans of South, Central, and North America (even between those on the west coast and those on the east coast), and I think that is a factor which needs to be taken into consideration as well.

So, I hope the whole race of Adam issue is settled. What else would you like to discuss? Do you discount the idea that Cain is/was of the serpent seed? Have you thoroughly researched the Lost Tribes of Israel? What do you think of some of the similarities between certain Hebrew and English words? You can answer the last two questions on the Lost Tribes of Israel thread in the Ancient and Lost Civilizations section if you want.

P.S. I'm not Mormon, I just read the BoM back in the summer-fall of 2002 because I was curious about it. I've also read the Qu'ran (Koran), the Bhagavad Gita, and the Tao te Ching (Dao de Jing).



posted on Jun, 20 2004 @ 04:56 AM
link   
I've been following your discourses concerning Sitchen's work on the Annuaki, and I'm a bit confused as to your position.
Is it that you think some of his work is plausible and some not and dont really believe any of it?

I'm not sure why it is so hard to accept some of the more reasonable explanations and yet accept that Annuaki did exist.
As I'm overseas I dont have access to my complete library that includes all that Sitchen has written.
In one of his tomes he claims that the Annuaki had been coming to this planet and mining its resources for a very long time. And that just prior to the earliest culture Sumeria, their group at that time rebelled and claimed that mining the resources was too physically demanding and so conceived a plan to create a worker. The history goes on to note that this created workers themselves rebelled and wanted better conditions and soon after that the Annuaki became involved in Human history.

As to mining for gold and used to worship gods, I'm pretty sure that was what drove the Aztec/Mayan cultures. There has been conjecture that the edifaces in Tiananco resemble mineral sluice devices for just that purpose.
Unfornatutely any clues in the form of written documents left behind in that culture was distroyed by the Catholic missionaries that followed Pizaro and Cortez through S. America and made sure that the truth (that did not including Catholic detities) of who were the fathers of their civilization.
It was noted by the missionary scribes that the walls of many of the domiciles in the Peruvian altoplano were covered in gold. And it was discribed by the missionaries, all the artifacts of their culture that was made of gold... the only break is in the proof that the Annuaki were the true forbarer of the Mayan/Aztec cultures and known as Quazeoatel.

You have made the connection of this culture with Quazecotal, now to run time back to the Annuaki who mined in Africa and South America, and used a landing pad in the middleast to transport their refined gold to the Mother Ship in NEO .

Again all is second hand information and we base what we believe on what we feel is credible. There is no doubt that in some areas Sitchin was probably not completely correct but its difficult to assertain this when there are so few qualifed scholars in this all but "dead languages".



posted on Jun, 20 2004 @ 10:37 AM
link   
Ischyros

Can you explain what you believe about the "Watchers?"

You said:

So, I hope the whole race of Adam issue is settled. What else would you like to discuss? Do you discount the idea that Cain is/was of the serpent seed? Have you thoroughly researched the Lost Tribes of Israel? What do you think of some of the similarities between certain Hebrew and English words? You can answer the last two questions on the Lost Tribes of Israel thread in the Ancient and Lost Civilizations section if you want.

The race of Adam settled? Probably not as I am never 100% convinced of anything except the love of God and the salvation of Jesus Christ. Yes, I discount the serpent seed concept concerning Cain. I think he was Adam's child. He grew angry and jealous of his brother and killed him. I agree that what he did was horribly wrong, but I also know that people of all races have killed out of anger and jealousy, so this is not a behavior specific to a certain race. I see no evidence in scripture that Cain was anyone else's son but Adam's. The sin of Cain was his alone to bear.

I realize that Jesus was angry with the jewish religious leaders of His day, but I think people are carrying this whole serpent thing too far. I take it you are not particularly fond of the Epistles of Paul ? That's usually the first place in the bible the white supremacists lose their religion - they believe Paul was an opportunist and his writings, heretical. I'm constantly amazed at such a concept, especially after considering the wisdom and truthfulness of those scriptures he is credited with writing.

[edit on 20-6-2004 by Undomiel]



posted on Jun, 20 2004 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Aye, I think Sitchin is a genius. I disagree with some of his work, and other parts I think are right on. I think he was on to something important and then got lost in the maze of history. Allow me to give an example:

He relies heavily on the sumerian passages relating to Enki or Enki-Ea to prove his points, but Enki (and Enki-Ea) was a fictitious Annunaki. Enki was derived from "An" and "Ki' (An+Ki). "AN" was an earlier male Annunaki and "KI" was probably some hapless human female he abducted. So he becomes a victim of the same problem he claims today's religious people are suffering with - lost data, political tinkering with doctrine, partial facts, etc. He can't generate sound theories on the premise of a fictitious Annunaki anymore than we can generate sound theories on the premise of King Arthur (although I do say, there's more chances Arthur is real than Enki-Ea!).



[edit on 20-6-2004 by Undomiel]



posted on Jun, 21 2004 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Undomiel

Can you explain what you believe about the "Watchers?"


I believe what the Book of Enoch says about the Watchers is true. They are/were angels assigned to guard the earth, many of whom decided to rebel against Yahweh and have offspring with human women.


Originally posted by UndomielThe race of Adam settled? Probably not as I am never 100% convinced of anything except the love of God and the salvation of Jesus Christ.


Sorry, wrong choice of words. I just meant we could stop debating about it for now.


Originally posted by Undomiel
Yes, I discount the serpent seed concept concerning Cain.


Okay. We disagree then.


Originally posted by Undomiel
I take it you are not particularly fond of the Epistles of Paul ?
[edit on 20-6-2004 by Undomiel]


No, I believe Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit.



posted on Jun, 22 2004 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Undomiel
I realize that Jesus was angry with the jewish religious leaders of His day, but I think people are carrying this whole serpent thing too far.


I don't believe that Yahshua's anger validates his vehement condemnation of the men (scribes, Pharisees, etc.) He confronted in Matthew ch. 23, especially considering that He was and is not a mere man, but Yahweh Elohim in the flesh.

KJV Matthew 7:1-2
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

KJV John 8:15-16
15 Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man.
16 And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.

KJV John 8:43-44
43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.

Matthew 3:7 "But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to see his [John the Baptist's] baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?"

KJV Matthew 12:34 [Yahshua speaking] "O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh."

KJV Matthew 23:33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

Yahshua asks these 'men', "How can ye escape the damnation of hell?" The logical conclusion is that they have no chance of salvation. They are the sons of darkness, the walking dead.

Earlier he told them:

KJV Matthew 23:15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

KJV 1 John 3:8-15
8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.
11 For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.
12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.
13 Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you.
14 We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.
15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

Interpreting verse 12 to mean that Cain was the literal son of Satan is just as valid, if not more so, than saying that Cain was merely spiritually "of that wicked one" by virtue of his actions.

Please don't take this the wrong way. I'm not trying to be harsh and combative. I'm merely providing evidence for why I believe the way I do.

Btw, I forgot to mention the Edomites. They are also among the "synagogue of Satan" and blasphemers who falsely claim to be Jews.

Regarding the race question, I've thought and prayed about it, and I can't agree that Adam and Eve were black. The prophecies regarding the nation of Israel throughout the Bible do seem to point more towards Europe and America than any African nation, or the blacks that were brought to the Americas as a result of the slave trade. But it has been over 2500 years since the ten tribes were taken into captivity by Assyria, so that has given plenty of time for Israelites to spread throughout all nations of the earth. I'm sure there are also blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and Native Americans who also have Israelite ancestors without knowing it. Isaiah 49:12 actually says that some Israelites will come "from the land of Sinim". Sinim is Hebrew for China.



posted on Jun, 22 2004 @ 01:24 AM
link   
Well consider these verses: (and apply them to the u2u you sent me as well)

Rom. 11: 17-28

17 And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree,
18 do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you.
19 You will say then, "Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in." 20 Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear.
21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either.
22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off.
23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.
24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural [branches], be graffed into their own olive tree?
25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
27 For this [is] my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
28 As concerning the gospel, [they are] enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, [they are] beloved for the fathers' sakes.


Those verses set off alarms in my head when I hear a white supremacist say that Jews are evil, liars, serpents and so on. It says firstly, the JEWS that Jesus called the Synagogue of Satan, are in fact, still protected by God. Jesus is allowed to judge them - WE ARE NOT! Secondly, it says to not even boast about their current fallen position in God's Kingdom, much less allow them to be annihilated from the planet nor assist in that annihiliation, nor force them to give up their homeland (I mean they only got one! Their arab brothers have 56. That's right. Arabic nations that have at least a fifty percent population of muslims number 56. If you include the fact they want Israel, which they call Palestine, as well, that'd be 57 nations for the arabic muslims and 0 for the israeli jews. Eh? What's wrong with this picture! )

Read the entire passage, several times if necessary. It's these types of verses that lay waste to Christian Identity theology and white supremacy teachings, and it is therefore for the same reason that they reject Paul's teachings such as those in Romans 11 or they try really hard to twist them into interesting pretzel shapes that bear no resemblence to the original.



posted on Jun, 22 2004 @ 09:06 AM
link   
The problem with the concept that all modern day jews are edomites by heritage is two-fold:

1. Esau was a descendant of Abraham and a son of Isaac. He was therefore an israelite by birth. He fell away from his religion as a result of jealousy and anger of his brother, who tricked him into selling him his birthright. Esau's sin was his inability to forgive his brother. 2 bad events transpired here: Jacob fooled his own father and tricked his brother to obtain Esau's birthright and Esau became incensed, left the area, and basically eeked out his revenge on the people who descended from his brother Jacob, by instilling the same hatred and bitterness in those people who he was the patriarchal father of - the Edomites.

2. To assume that today all israeli jews are edomites is to assume that the jews in captivity who were not edomites did not continue their heritage and practice of their religion - this, in my opinion, is way to presumptive and even borders on being illogical. Today jews are returning from all over the globe, back to Israel. Think about this carefully. If the jews who were not edomites also went into captivity and then returned back from that captivity, why do you suppose they are lumped in with the edomites of old by white supremacists? I'm thinking it's because they want to believe that the jews who were not edomites were caucasians - in other words, they accept no semetic people, not even the arabs (because the israelites went into captivity to several nations, including the egyptians, the romans, the babylonians, the ethiopians, etc). Rather they claim the arabs have more right to the land simply because the white supremacists hate jews of any variety (edomite or not). Yet, if you were to ask an arabic muslim who the jews were, they'd tell you they are basically russians who are trying to steal the land! (these russians are white people with some semetic roots) If I am to believe that ALL the current jews are edomites of black and race-mixed descent, how can I also believe they are ALL of white and race-mixed descent? It's too convulted. IT goes around and around and where it stops nobody knows.

Let's take for example the lack of logic in assuming that the only people who were true israelites and jews were those who escaped captivity with their white skin and caucasian heritage intact - et. al, even though they were in captivity at the same time as their edomite brothers, they didn't race mix. Riiiiight. Slaves didn't race mix. H'okay. Is it even logical to assume they all escaped captivity and slavery with their "purity" and white-ness" still firmly intact? I mean, that's the assumption - that the israelites are actually caucasians and the current jews are race-mixed idolators of edomite descent. How can they tell?

Consider Esther, who was the Queen of a pagan arabic ruler of the Persia-Median empire. Had she or any of the other jews in captivity at the time had children by him or his people, which is quite likely, their descendants would be the descendants of pagans. Most of the original christians of Rome were of pagan heritage as Rome was primarily a pagan empire prior to the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Furthermore, isn't the sin of Esau and therefore the edomites, rooted in the jealousy and anger of Esau towards his brother's people, which he taught to others? I don't understand the lack of forgiveness this subject has inspired in people for hundreds of years now. To hold a grudge against an entire people, who you can't distinguish one from another based merely on their religious creed or the color of their skin or the size of their noses or the size of their bank accounts, etc, is .......confusing to me to say the least and sounds remarkably like Esau's sin - et.al, jealousy and anger (unfounded in this case).

Please explain for me what the basis is for your beliefs in this regard?


[edit on 23-6-2004 by Undomiel]

[edit on 23-6-2004 by Undomiel]



posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Undomiel
Those verses set off alarms in my head when I hear a white supremacist say that Jews are evil, liars, serpents and so on. It says firstly, the JEWS that Jesus called the Synagogue of Satan, are in fact, still protected by God.


The synagogue of Satan are not Jews.

KJV Revelation 2:9
9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.

KJV Revelation 3:9
9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.



Originally posted by Undomiel
Jesus is allowed to judge them - WE ARE NOT!


KJV Matthew 7:1-2
1 Judge (krino) not, that ye be not judged (krino).
2 For with what judgment (krima) ye judge (krino), ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

krino may be translated "to condemn", while krima may be translated "condemnation". I believe this is the sense in which Yahshua intended us to understand His words.

KJV Matthew 7:16-20
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

KJV 1 Corinthians 2:12-16
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15 But he that is spiritual judgeth (anakrino - examines) all things, yet he himself is judged (anakrino) of no man.
16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.



Originally posted by Undomiel
Secondly, it says to not even boast about their current fallen position in God's Kingdom, much less allow them to be annihilated from the planet nor assist in that annihiliation, nor force them to give up their homeland (I mean they only got one!


I grew up in a normal Baptist church, attended non-denominational churches beginning in high school, and basically believed everything a mainstream Evangelical Protestant Christian was supposed to believe about the Bible and about the Jews up until a little over two years ago. You probably could have even called me a Zionist, as I believed the 'Jews' had a divine right to the land of Israel/Palestine. I was never an anti-Semitic person. I'm still not. Not according to my definition of Shemite anyway.



Originally posted by Undomiel
Their arab brothers have 56.


There are only 22 Arabic-speaking nations in the world. Perhaps you are referring to the number of Muslim countries on the planet? I'm not sure, I couldn't find an exact number on that score. Anyway, not all Middle-Easterners and Muslims are Arabs. The term "Arab" (due to the the Pan-Arabism movements) has become more of a cultural and political title than a purely racial one. EDIT: Btw, I forgot to mention earlier, more 'Jews' live in the United States than live in Israel. Something like 6+ million (or more) to 4 million. 1 million of Israel's population are 'Arabs'.


Originally posted by Undomiel
Read the entire passage, several times if necessary.


I've read every book of the Bible multiple times, and I'm very familiar with Romans chapter 11. I have no problems with what Paul wrote. There's no need to twist it. I just don't happen to agree with the Satanic world system as to the true identity of the Jewish people. I don't believe that the modern nation-state of Israel represents true Israel. Also, I don't advocate physical violence against the so-called 'Jews' (Khazars, Edomites, etc.). I'm not out to annihilate anyone, unlike the Zionists, the Illuminati, and their fallen angel/alien overlords.

[edit on 23-6-2004 by Ischyros]



posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Undomiel
1. Esau was a descendant of Abraham and a son of Jacob (who was called Israel). He was therefore an israelite by birth.


Esau was Jacob/Israel's older twin brother. The nation of Israel did not yet exist when he was born, therefore he was not, is not, and never will be an Israelite. There is only one man in all of Scripture, only one person in the entire Bible for whom Yahweh (Hebrew name of God) declares His personal hatred. That man’s name is Esau, the elder twin brother of Jacob.

KJV Malachi 1:1-5
1 The burden of the word of the LORD [Yahweh] to Israel by Malachi.
2 I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob,
3 And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.
4 Whereas Edom saith, We are impoverished, but we will return and build the desolate places; thus saith the LORD of hosts, They shall build, but I will throw down; and they shall call them, the border of wickedness, and, the people against whom the LORD hath indignation for ever.

And again in the New Testament:

KJV Romans 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

I suggest taking a look at Obadiah and Isaiah ch. 34 as well.



Originally posted by Undomiel
2. To assume that today all israeli jews are edomites is to assume that the jews in captivity who were not edomites did not continue their heritage and practice of their religion - this, in my opinion, is way to presumptive and even borders on being illogical.


It's difficult to know for certain how many true Israelite Jews were actually sold into slavery or otherwise exiled by the Romans. There were Jews who converted to Christianity in the first century A.D. who most likely wouldn't have had anything to do with the uprising of 66-70 A.D., and definitely not the Bar Kochba Revolt of 132-135 A.D.. Thousands upon thousands were slain during these wars. It's possible that more Edomite/Idumean 'Jews' survived and were dispersed into Europe than were true Israelite Jews. I stated before I don't claim every single member of the modern Jewish people to be descended from the Khazar Turks (who converted to Judaism in the Middle Ages) or from Edom, just that the majority are. For those who are true Jews, I pray they will accept Yahshua as their savior and have nothing to do with the Zionists and their confederates.



Originally posted by Undomiel
Yet, if you were to ask an arabic muslim who the jews were, they'd tell you they are basically russians who are trying to steal the land! (these russians are white people with some semetic roots) If I am to believe that ALL the current jews are edomites of black and race-mixed descent, how can I also believe they are ALL of white and race-mixed descent?


I agree that many Ashkenazi are of Khazar Turkish descent. Also, I never said that Edomites were black. Esau married a couple of Canaanite woman and one daughter of Ishmael. Later his descendants married into the Horim/Horites in Mt. Seir who were Nephilim hybrids. (See Genesis 26:34-35; 28:8-9; all of ch. 36; 1 Chronicles 1:34-54. Deuteronomy 2:12 says the Edomites destroyed the Horim, but it seems they didn't eradicate them entirely. For instance, Amalek was born from the union of Eliphaz, Esau''s son, and Timna, Lotan the Horite's sister.)



Originally posted by Undomiel
Is it even logical to assume they all escaped captivity and slavery with their "purity" and white-ness" still firmly intact? I mean, that's the assumption - that the israelites are actually caucasians and the current jews are race-mixed idolators of edomite descent. How can they tell?


If the actual Israelites who were taken into captivity mixed themselves with the Edomites. their children would probably fall under Esau's curse. I suppose you can tell a tree by its fruit. Your argument could also be used to point out the very non-homogeneous make-up and ancestry of the modern Middle Eastern populace. A few centuries after the Persian empire was conquered by the Macedonians and the Greeks, the Romans and the Parthians came, then the Arabs (who Mohammed claimed to be Ishmaelites], after them the Turks, later the Mongols, and finally even more Turks. There were also some 11 million black slaves carried into the Middle East around the same period as the Atlantic slave trade was in operation. So, it's a very good possibility that most Middle Easterners don't resemble their ancestors very much.



Originally posted by UndomielConsider Esther, who was the Queen of a pagan arabic ruler of the Persia-Median empire.


Interesting that you mention Esther. Researching that book is what led me to the information on the two-seedline doctrine. Esther/Ishtar is the only book of the Bible that doesn't mention Yahweh Elohim or anything in reference to the worship of Him even once. Mordecai is a variant of the chief Babylonian god Marduk and Haman is possibly the name of an Elamite deity. Ahasuerus is also interesting. Many attempt to connect him with Xerxes, but this is highly unlikely given the known history of Xerxes (as related by such historians as Herodotus). Furthermore, the Persian empire never had 127 provinces, as mentioned in the following verses.

KJV Esther 1:1-3
1 Now it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus, (this is Ahasuerus which reigned, from India even unto Ethiopia, over an hundred and seven and twenty provinces

2 That in those days, when the king Ahasuerus sat on the throne of his kingdom, which was in Shushan the palace,
3 In the third year of his reign, he made a feast unto all his princes and his servants; the power of Persia and Media, the nobles and princes of the provinces, being before him:

It is possible that the powers and princes referred to in this passage are of a far different nature than most people realize.



Originally posted by Undomiel
Furthermore, isn't the sin of Esau and therefore the edomites, rooted in the jealousy and anger of Esau towards his brother's people, which he taught to others?


Esau's sins were disdain for the birthright (he sold to his younger brother Jacob for a bowl of lentiles) and marrying Canaanite, serpent-seed women.

If you want more info on how and why Esau's descendants began to take on the identity of the Jews, please see the following thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

In my last post on that thread there's a link to a very thorough study on Edom.



posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 07:27 AM
link   
This is from one of your earlier posts, but an idea occurred to me which may just provide an explanation for this.


Originally posted by Undomiel
To further hone it down, a little common sense would tell you that God would not create a race of people who could not withstand the climate of a nearly equatorial location such as ancient Sumeria or Africa.


Adam was never meant to live in the Middle East. Adam was “formed” out “of the dust of the ground (‘adamah - red earth) and then “put” in the garden of Eden (Genesis 2:7-8). We’re not even sure what part of the Middle East Adam lived in. And there’s even a possibility that Adam and his descendants lived in the Tarim basin (where a massive flood did occur in ancient times), not Sumeria. Instead of Adam, Seth, and their descendants, the Sumerian king list may be a record of Cain and his line. Cain is the first man recorded in the Bible to build a city after all. The Sumerians/Cainites would have received the story of the flood from the descendants of Noah who later traveled there.

KJV Genesis 11:1-2
1 And the whole earth [‘eretz - land] was of one language. and of one speech.
2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.

Some might say that it’s impossible for the garden to be located outside of the Middle East because of the following verses.

KJV Genesis 2:13-14
13 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.
14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.

But how many locations in America are named after locations in Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East? Quite a few. It is not unreasonable that the Shemites, Japhethites, and Hamites would name the regions they relocated to (and geographical features they found there) after those they left behind.



posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Esau was Jacob/Israel's older twin brother. The nation of Israel did not yet exist when he was born, therefore he was not, is not, and never will be an Israelite. There is only one man in all of Scripture, only one person in the entire Bible for whom Yahweh (Hebrew name of God) declares His personal hatred. That man’s name is Esau, the elder twin brother of Jacob.


Yes, I know. I was sleepy when I wrote that. I had Isaac and Jacob mixed up. I still say he was an israelite by birth because he was a hebrew by birth and a descendant of Abraham and would therefore fall under the same Abrahamic covenants as the rest of Israel (he missed the covenant with Israel though, but not the one with Abraham).


KJV Romans 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

I suggest taking a look at Obadiah and Isaiah ch. 34 as well.


People keep missing a major point of the bible (which is repeated again and again): God/Jesus is allowed to judge and hate - WE ARE NOT! What does it say? Love your enemies. Love your neighbor. Forgive again and again. Pray for those who persecute you and despitefully use you. Turn the other cheek. Don't judge lest ye be judged. I mean, how much clearer can it be, Ischyros?

Interesting that you mention Esther. Researching that book is what led me to the information on the two-seedline doctrine. Esther/Ishtar is the only book of the Bible that doesn't mention Yahweh Elohim or anything in reference to the worship of Him even once. Mordecai is a variant of the chief Babylonian god Marduk and Haman is possibly the name of an Elamite deity. Ahasuerus is also interesting. Many attempt to connect him with Xerxes, but this is highly unlikely given the known history of Xerxes (as related by such historians as Herodotus). Furthermore, the Persian empire never had 127 provinces, as mentioned in the following verses.

Whoa, you need to read it again. Esther is all about a hebrew woman who loved God and loved her people.


It is possible that the powers and princes referred to in this passage are of a far different nature than most people realize.


What do you mean "far different nature?"


Esau's sins were disdain for the birthright (he sold to his younger brother Jacob for a bowl of lentiles) and marrying Canaanite, serpent-seed women.


Wrong. I agree he flubbed up when he sold his birthright and marrying into the Canaanites, well that's a different subject (we can discuss this in another post). But historically, where God grew really angry with him had nothing to do with Esau's monetary/worldly inheritance, but his anger and bitterness towards his brother and his brother's descendants, which he taught to his descendants (the edomites) and his decision to leave his religion. I maintain this adamantly, because the bible repeatedly states that the sin of mixing with the other races of the time was NOT their genetic makeup but their false religions (unless of course, they were nephilim). You would have to prove to me that the canaanites were nephilim before I would agree God was also angry with Esau for his decision to marry into the canaanites, genetically-speaking. If anything, He would've been angry over the "false religion" of the canaanites, who were Ba'al worshippers (and Ba'al is Enlil, and Enlil is an Annunaki/Fallen Angel). Ya have to show me where it says they were also nephilim. I don't think they were. I think some of them were, but not the entire race of canaanites. Then you would have to show me where it says Esau married specificially into the nephilim sector of the canaanite population. 2 different things going on: Forbidden marriage due to DNA or forbidden marriage due to religion.

Also, what about the showdown with the prophets of Ba'al that Elijah took part in? If he was like the only prophet of Jehovah Elohiym amongst all the people of Israel who stood up against Ba'al, then the bulk of the israelites were worshipping false gods themselves.


[edit on 23-6-2004 by Undomiel]



posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 12:55 PM
link   

KJV Genesis 2:13-14
13 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.
14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.


Actually, the 4 rivers mentioned encompass a much bigger land area than what is currently thought to be the location of Eden, so I agree that it could be possible. I need some information though concerning the canaanites before we proceed. I also believe the sumerian history of the flood is talking about the same flood, but from different perspectives, so you may be right about that, as well. I disagree, however, that they simply renamed them after rivers elsewhere unless you have some information that supports this.



posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by MOOR45
The native americans were Asiatic(black/Moor) which eventually interbred with the Caucasian people to produce what is seen as the common Indian or reddish-brown complexion.

No, I'm afraid that's not true. A close examination of their skulls shows distinct racial differences that are not a combination of Caucasian and African. African/Black skulls are quite different from Asiatics.

Racially (based on skeletal conformations, teeth shoveling, and skull landmarks) American Indians are descendants of the peoples of the Eastern end of Russia and those are descendents of the Asiatics. They show the genetic separation you'd expect from a people who split from their main racial group only 12,000 years or so ago.


They're was a civilization even before the Olmecs, but I'm sorry the name eludes me right now.

There were a lot of them, actually, but they left few traces. They're known as the PaleoIndians... and I have a nice long lecture I can ramble into (but won't), courtesy of my last archaeological field school.


Alot of people have a hard time believing that asiatic peoples were here and didn't all come from Africa, but the archaelogical evidence has been produced in the form of 20-30 ton stone statutes here in the Americas.

Actually, the Olmecs produced those. And no, archaeologists don't think they're from an African people (by the way, in addition to the genuine statues which do have some features we associate with African people, there are also a number of outright fakes.)


The ancients at one time refered to this land as Amexem.

No, I'm afraid they didn't. Actually, we don't know WHAT they called America (and the name would vary according to language. Some of the lanuages have disappeared.)


Plato describes the great cataclysm which separated what is now known today as Africa and America at about 9000BC.

Er... no. He described briefly the sinking of a mythical land of Atlantis, but he did not describe continents parting. You can read it for yourself online.


Quezacotl as Thoth? First time I remember hearing that.

Add me to the list of skeptics, particularly considering the attributes of Thoth and Quetzalcoatl. members.aol.com...
nefertiti.iwebland.com...

The records we have of some deity that LOOKS like Quetzalcoatl actually go back to the rock art of the Pecos and Colorado area -- and the drawings are considerably older than the Egyptian depictions of Thoth. The god Kokopeli is of the same approximate age... and both older than the Egyptian concepts.
jan.ucc.nau.edu...


Thoth being the Greek word which derived from Tehuti-Thoth which became what we know today as thought.

Actually, it's from the Old English selfknowledge.com...
www.hyperdictionary.com...



posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Actually, the Olmecs produced those. And no, archaeologists don't think they're from an African people (by the way, in addition to the genuine statues which do have some features we associate with African people, there are also a number of outright fakes.)

Interesting. So if the genuine statues have features we associate with african people, can we assume that means they had similar ancestral roots? I think it means just that. What do you think? You think they evolved from apes as a result of bacteria? Do you realize what a stretch that is? I mean, of all the countless theories as regards our presence on this planet, evolution has got to be one of the worst. It constructs elaborate theories on the basis of a couple bone fragments and when it can't complete the ultimate leap to homosapian it snatches some DNA from a bacteria. If such haphazard theorizing were anywhere else but the scientific community (trying desperately to support a failing theory), it'd be lambasted as totally ridiculous.

What fakes, by the way?



posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Byrd, I never said plato described Africa and America Verbatim, but he does describe in his statements verbatim"This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean, for inthose days the Atlantic was navigable; and there was an Island situated in front of the straits which you call the columns of Heracles. The island was larger than Libya and Asia put toghether and was the way to other islands, and from the islands youmay pass through the whole opposite continent which surrounded the true ocean". Navigable then implying it was no navigable at the time he spoke to Solon the Greek. Many archaeologist claimed that those heads were from Africans not Olmecs, Mayans, Toltecs, etc. We were taught these doctors theories in schoo so I know it to be fact. Not all though. Maybe at that time it was the primary notion. He also mentions an empire which ruled this "continent" (North, South Central).
You are mistaking the word Asiatic to only include peoples of what is known today as present day Asia. Asia, according to scholars, was the name of one large land mass. It is not based on just complexion alone. The skulls themselves are not completeley indicative of the intermixing. They are bound to change as the DNA from one group of peoples combines with another so the standard of what skull shape is thought to be primarily "Indian" would be inconclusive to what the outcome of the new combination is.
I'm am not aware of the fakes you mention but the statutes I mentioned are 20-60 tons (hard to manipulate). If they came acroos the Beiring Straits as conventional wisdom dictates, wouldn't the colder climates be consistent with a lighter complexion or was ancient Russia of a different climate? I am not sure. Maybe you can tell me. The Olmecs were thought to be the oldest but I have read of another dynasty that is older. But I will shut up until I can find the source!
As far as Amexem is concerned it is a name combined from the word Mexico and Olmec that was coded and used by my ancestors but as far as concrete evidence of names try Time Magazine #ISBN 0-8129-0847-3. They poduced a copy of the oldest known map of North America and that ancient Libyan-Arabic script came about in 1st century B.C. and in the center of the continent hinting the early names of the land. Quetzalcoatl known as Amaru in Peruand his territory was known as Amaruca (1895ed. of Lucifer-Theosophical Society). Indian is a latter Latin word coming from Hindi or Sindu, meaning dark hued transferring older Latin word Ethiopian.

[edit on 6/23/2004 by MOOR45]

[edit on 6/23/2004 by MOOR45]

[edit on 6/23/2004 by MOOR45]



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 01:05 AM
link   
[

Originally posted by Undomiel
Yes, I know. I was sleepy when I wrote that. I had Isaac and Jacob mixed up.


No problem.



Originally posted by Undomiel
I still say he was an israelite by birth because he was a hebrew by birth and a descendant of Abraham and would therefore fall under the same Abrahamic covenants as the rest of Israel (he missed the covenant with Israel though, but not the one with Abraham).


I believe Esau forsook the Abrahamic covenant by the selling of his birthright and by Jacob's 'theft' of their father Isaac's blessing. Remember what almost happened to the entire nation of Israel (besides Moses) in the wilderness because of their unbelief?

KJV Exodus 32:9-
32:9 And the LORD said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people:
32:10 Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation.
32:11 And Moses besought the LORD his God, and said, LORD, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand?
32:12 Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people.
32:13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever.
32:14 And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.



Originally posted by Undomiel
People keep missing a major point of the bible (which is repeated again and again): God/Jesus is allowed to judge and hate - WE ARE NOT! What does it say? Love your enemies. Love your neighbor. Forgive again and again. Pray for those who persecute you and despitefully use you. Turn the other cheek. Don't judge lest ye be judged. I mean, how much clearer can it be, Ischyros?


I hope I am not preaching hate. I just want to help set my brothers and sisters free from the delusion that Zionist 'Israel' is the true Israel, and that the modern day 'Jews' are actually Yahweh God's chosen people. If anyone wants to see the result of physically opposing the Edomites, just look at what happened to Germany at the end of WWII.

KJV Genesis 27:38-40
38 And Esau said unto his father, Hast thou but one blessing, my father? bless me, even me also, O my father. And Esau lifted up his voice, and wept.
39 And Isaac his father answered and said unto him, Behold, thy dwelling shall be the fatness of the earth, and of the dew of heaven from above;
40 And by thy sword shalt thou live, and shalt serve thy brother; and it shall come to pass when thou shalt have the dominion, that thou shalt break his yoke from off thy neck.

(Note: I am not claiming that Hitler and the Nazis were right. From what I've read, they bought into a lot of the Neo-pagan and Theosophical nonsense and seemed to believe that the 'Jews' were actually Israelites. But here have been so many lies told, and so much propaganda has been published about WWII that I'm not really sure what to believe about many aspects of it at this time.)

The following passage is also interesting:

KJV Acts 13:8-11
8 But Elymas the sorcerer (for so is his name by interpretation) withstood them, seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith.
9 Then Saul, (who also is called Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him.
10 And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?
11 And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thee, and thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun for a season. And immediately there fell on him a mist and a darkness; and he went about seeking some to lead him by the hand.

See also Jude 1:4-13



Originally posted by Undomiel
Whoa, you need to read it again. Esther is all about a hebrew woman who loved God and loved her people.


That is what it seems to be on the surface, but I've done a thorough study of the book of Esther, and the story it relates has many problems. If you want to discuss it further, maybe I can U2U about it later.


Originally posted by Undomiel
It is possible that the powers and princes referred to in this passage are of a far different nature than most people realize.

What do you mean "far different nature?"


Fallen angelic princes and powers.

KJV Ephesians 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

Please see also Daniel 10:13, 20; John 12:31; John 14:30; Romans 8:38-39; 1 Corinthians 2:6-8; Ephesians 2:2



Originally posted by Undomiel
But historically, where God grew really angry with him had nothing to do with Esau's monetary/worldly inheritance, but his anger and bitterness towards his brother and his brother's descendants, which he taught to his descendants (the edomites) and his decision to leave his religion.


I agree that hatred and jealousy were a major part of Edom's rebellion.

KJV Genesis 27:41 And Esau hated Jacob because of the blessing wherewith his father blessed him: and Esau said in his heart, The days of mourning for my father are at hand; then will I slay my brother Jacob.

Esau wasn't interested in the birthright, but he did covet the material blessings which belong to Yahweh's people. It was wrong for Jacob and his mother Rebecca to conspire to steal the blessing which Isaac had promised Esau, but Isaac never should have promised it to Esau in the first place (given his eldest son's character). Isaac must have realized this, which is why he didn't complain about what happened. However, due to Isaac's mistake and Jacob's trespass, the descendants of Esau have always felt they have the right to take back what was wrongly 'stolen' from them. Events like WWI and WWII, the creation of the so-called Federal Reserve Bank, and the ratification of the 16th Amendment (1913, income tax) in America have enabled them to do so.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join